I discussed three rebellions: 1) the Jacobite Uprising (unsuccessful), 2) the American colonial rebellion (successful), and 3) the American "secessionist" rebellion (unsuccessful).
The first one was about religion (Catholic/Protestant) and the politics of Scotland/Great Britain. My ancestors fought for the losing side, but I can't really tell you now that history has shown that one side was more just than the other.
The second one (our American war for independence) concerned whether the American colonies were to be governed by a king on the other side of the Atlantic. Setting aside the monarchy issue, I think a good argument can be made that it made sense for Americans to govern themselves. Remember, it took weeks just to communicate a message across the Atlantic. The colonies had matured to a degree that they could govern themselves and so I think that rebellion made a lot of sense from a purely logistical point of view.
The third rebellion concerned the American "secessionists" desire for independence from the USA. The "secessionists" claimed that "secession" was absolutely necessary to preserve slavery (and they were probably right about that). Slavery had had a long track record in this world, but the desire to preserve slavery was running against the tides of history. For those who owned slaves, the prospective loss of their investment in human beings naturally clouded their judgement. At the time, slaves as an asset class may have been the most valuable asset class in the world. (At least, that is what the "secessionists" claimed.)
I don't judge the merits of these three rebellions by who won or who lost. In terms of history, I don't think it now matters much to most of the world whether George II or Bonnie Prince Charlie won (and, again,my family was on the losing side of that struggle). In truth, the Stuarts were just as rotten as their enemies.
I do think that the world benefited from the success of the American colonies. I don't think it made sense for Great Britain to try to govern prosperous colonies on the other side of an ocean. And, I think that the American colonists went on to create the greatest nation in the history of the world. I think the USA has done much good. So, that is why I am glad that the colonies won that struggle.
I don't think that our world would have benefited from the preservation of slavery for any length of time. I am sorry that so many people had to die and I am even sorry that some slaveholders lost what was genuinely a huge investment, but it was time for slavery to go. So, I'm glad that the "secessionists" lost their rebellion.
Well I’ve heard more than a few Americans think it didn’t turn out so great. A powerful centralized national government impervious to outside correction is part of Lincoln’s legacy. States are now mere administrative districts of the federal Leviathan.
There are not many of you who believe that the wrong side won our Civil War. The USA is popular in every section this country. The South is every bit as patriotic as any other section.
You have no real reason to believe that a CSA wouldn't have grown into a powerful, bloated bureaucracy on its own. As shown by Wallet Hub (a financial website), red states are more financially dependent on the Federal government than blue states. Overall, the Federal government is being used to transfer financial resources from blue states to red states. When it comes to using a big, central government as an ATM, the South is at the front of the line.
Southern states were also at the front of the line when it came to ratifying the 16th Amendment (our federal income tax). Alabama was the first state to ratify that amendment, Kentucky was second, South Carolina was third, Mississippi was fifth, Oklahoma was sixth, Maryland was seventh, Georgia was eighth and Texas was ninth. And, despite all this, you somehow conclude that the people of the South don't like big, centralized government?
You live in a dream world, friend. The South is as responsible as any section of this country for the fact that we have a monstrous central government in Washington, DC.
Excellent post Tau Food. Lost causers who selectively choose to blame all of the world’s ills on the Lincoln administration do so by ignoring the consequent effects of the rebellion and the fact that the would-be confederacy imposed the same burdens as the union did.
Income tax? It’s true that the congress of the union imposed an income tax, but the confeds immediately did the same. Tariffs? The confeds implemented them too. State-sponsored censorship? Yep, they did it too, along with suspension of habeas corpus and other suspensions of civil rights.
It was an ugly time - all the way around. Thank God we got beyond it and thank God the right side won!
“There are not many of you who believe that the wrong side won our Civil War”
“You have no real reason to believe that a CSA wouldn’t have grown into a powerful, bloated bureaucracy on its own.”
Well those are your imaginings since I don’t recall stating my opinion on either one.
It’s not likely that the CSA would have become a centralized bureaucratic state. It was an agrarian society with a different culture than the Northeast. And 150 years after the War the South still isn’t plagued by the busybody mentality found in the Northeast, unless it’s inflicted on them by the heirs of that same crowd entrenched in Washington DC. That particular self-righteous yankee mindset didn’t go away after the Civil War it just channeled itself into new ideas that the rest of the country must obey, gay marriage being their latest enthusiasm. It’s not a coincidence that the Northeast is the bastion of liberal and leftist politics in America.
The wrong side of the Civil War is the belief that it was good or necessary. Had Lincoln let the seven Deep South states secede in peace they would have just been a larger version of the Republic of Texas, and the Republic of Texas had already discovered that it was hard to go it alone. The much smaller CSA would have had to come to an accommodation with the USA.
The CSA’s one major asset would have been control of Mississippi river traffic accessing the Gulf. But the seven member CSA also had a major problem built into its geography. It had a one thousand mile border with the remaining US states and runaways could simply cross into the US instead of heading for Canada. With the Deep South gone the US Congress could vote to end slavery in 1861. The CSA would have been confronted with a porous border as well as the economic rationale for slavery coming to an end.
Slavery ended all over the western hemisphere without war except in the case of Lincoln. The death and destruction of the Civil War was entirely unnecessary for ending slavery, it was mandatory only for Lincoln’s desire to force an unwilling population to remain in a union it no longer wanted to be part of.
Without the conservative South, the USA would already be a socialist country, on the verge of communism. The Soviet Union would still exist and the world would be a more f-ed up place than it already is. Why do yo think the MSM, liberals, socialists, Democrats and South haters all over the USA (like you) want the South's heritage erased or better yet rewritten to conform with some liberal fantasies?